tv Public Affairs CSPAN October 19, 2012 7:00pm-8:00pm EDT
>> who knows what it's going to throw at us. women seem to get skills and credentials at a much faster rate than men are and they seem to be more nimble. and that kind of filters down into our society. in my book i talk about how that changes marriage and notions of fatherhood in what men can and can't do in families and how young people as sex and make decisions. so you really start to see it having an influence in our culture.
>> yesterday and can and can't, linda mcmahon faced off against democratic congressman, chris murphy to fill the seat of retiring senator joe lieberman. this hour-long debate was hosted by the connecticut broadcasters association. >> moderator: welcome to the bottom of the hilton hotel in downtown hartford for this final debate of the u.s. senate campaign in connecticut between democratic congressman chris murphy and republican, linda mcmahon. this debate is sponsored by the connecticut broadcasters association. the reporters include al terzi, dennis tallis, keisha grant, nbc
connecticut and mark davis or news eight. the rules for this debate are as follows. each report of ask a question of our candidates. each candidate will have two minutes to respond. there will then be an opportunity for a one minute rebuttal for both candidates. our reporters less questions and sequins. i want to see this necessary for clarification or to remind about time limits in a less questions if needed to pound out the hour. at that point, the format may be offered to allow each candidate equal but reduce time to answer the remaining time available. each candidate also will have an opportunity for a closing statement. i will remind everyone in our audience to hold off on applause until the end of the debate to ensure that our candidates have time to address the issues. as a result of a coin test earlier come in the first is going to go to linda mcmahon and the first question comes from al terzi. i >> thank you very much, steve.
when you were asked last week at uconn how you would protect social security bookkeeping program costs under control, you gave no specifics. he merely said you and your colleagues ought to be in a room in a bipartisan way figure out something, so i'd like to ask you today. pretend this is that room and you just been nice, senator linda mcmahon, what are your ideas? said to first while, thank you for the question and joining us today. what i said about social security is that i will not support any budget that would reduce the benefit that our seniors are getting today. and i have continued to say that we do need to get in a room and put the issues on the table. there are several things to think about relative to reforming and preserving social security and medicare as we go forward. all of those issues need to be put on the table. i have not talked about
specifics when i've been on the campaign trail because they get demagogues and you have no opportunity at all when you go went to the churches on the table to discuss them. but there's many ways we can reform social security and medicare and we must do that. it's not sustainable going forward, but i would not do anything to reduce the benefit our seniors are getting today. there's only one person on the stages are devoted to reduce benefits to seniors for medicare and that's congressman murphy. congressman murphy voted to cut medicare by $716 billion to pay for the affordable health care act. that is not something i will do. we need to protect our seniors. we've made promises to them for their social security and medicare and i will do nothing that will reduce the benefits. >> moderator: congressman murphy. murphy: nick and bernie pannonia senior couple living in connecticut.
network would need his whole life and they saved money for retirement, but not enough so they social security check did make a difference for them being able to keep a roof over their head and put food on the table. and nick and barbara wanted no what they are candidates for the united states senate are going to do when they get elected and whether or not they are going to have seniors to bear the burden of saving social security or whether we're going to s. those who have done very well by this economy. linda mcmahon is right. she's refused to tell people what she would do about social security when she's been out in public on the campaign trail. but she has told people what she is in favor of doing when she didn't think the cameras were on, when she was speaking before a tea party group, she said, and i quote, i believe in subset provisions would pass this legislation. you can take a look at 10 or 15 years down the road.
i disagree with that. i don't think we should play games of nick and barbara social security checks. we should fix the problem, but not put our senior social security paychecks at risk in doing it. i think we have an obligation of candidates for the senate to tell people what we're going to do. she said she's going to get demagogues. but the way of saying she's going to lose votes. you might lose votes if you take a position. but that's our responsibility as candidates to tell folks what we'll do. i would support raising the cap on income that is taxable for social security purposes so we asked those who have done well to help us pay for the program. as for this idea that i've cut $700 billion from medicare is just wrong. we cut those monies from over payments to insurance companies, overpayments are drug companies and use the money to make us a stronger for seniors. the health care bill cuts in half the amount a senior has to
pay when they go into the doughnut hole. best of the health care bill is all about. >> moderator:, you know you've not been honest about stigma my position is relative to social security. he constantly is part of a quote even the use to fretted in its entirety, you never read the whole thing. the hartford current said you put up relativist in your own statements are baseless insults. i've repeatedly said it will not do anything to cut benefits to our seniors who are getting them today and that i won't. cut in the $760 million out of medicare does affect seniors benefits because it reduces the reimbursements to hospitals and doctors in nursing homes. medicare actuaries have said that 15% of hospitals will go out of business if those payments aren't reimbursed.
so this is a benefit reduction to her seniors than something to be concerned about. murphy: is difficult to believe because in our fourth straight day she will be straight with the people of this state. you have to take a few comments she's made on the record that she did to this tea party group when she said she would support sunsetting asser position. other than that she can't get her priorities. on medicare, her ideas are more dangerous. she said repeatedly she would be open to paul ryan and matt romney's plans. privatizing medicare to be an absolute disaster for seniors across this state because of that the entire medicare system. the privatization would cost seniors $6000 more i need you to
take a breath now. our next question is from dennis house and it's going to go to congressman murphy. >> a democratic controlled legislature and the congressional delegation made up of all democrats at the exception of joe lieberman. at the? had come in this one-party rule would continue. why do you believe complete control by one party is good for connecticut? murphy: i watched with the republican party has become in washington. we've had a tradition of republicans that were different from what we see. unfortunately the republican party has really become radicalized. it has become a shadow of what it once was and i don't think they have connecticut's interests at heart. the republican party that seeks to take control of the united states senate would eradicate a woman's right to choose where she could do with her own body.
a republican senate would destroy the environmental protections in the state in this nation has fought so hard for. the republican senate would pass another round of tax cuts for the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class. republicans take over the senate want to do away with things that the department of education to which department of education to which it funded our schools in connecticut. this is the republican party linda mcmahon would empower and she was elected to the united states senate. many of those issues, she holds the same position as they do. i'm proud of the fact that i've reached out across the aisle as a member of congress, that i started a group called the center aisle caucus, group of republicans working together to find areas to two parties can come together. i'm proud of i'm proud of taking on a president when i think you saw, calling for a budget that cuts spending a greater rate than he was willing to concede he hasn't been strong enough in protecting their manufacturers.
i'm certainly willing to call a party and president when i think is wrong. but i watched in washington is the republican party and a tea party that does not have connecticut's interests at heart, one that under mcmahon would be the 51st to vote for she was elected to the state senate. someone misses the main it's your turn. mcmahon: i would like to look at the history since congressman murphy has been in congress. he just had failed policies. failed policies that increase our debt, almost doubled our debt. our taxes have gone up, food prices increased, gas prices have gone up, wages are lower. all here in our state are increasing. 170,000 people woke up this money without a job in connecticut. the issues of this race are about jobs and the economy. we need to send, i believe, senators to washington who have experience creating jobs, that
know the impact. i watched on trent lott to no shoes. i know what it's like to lose everything and have to come back from bankruptcy and start all over again. i know what it's like to have a child and not have any health care coverage. and when i talk to the people in connecticut, these are the issues on their minds. they're worried about their jobs. so we need to do is to make sure that our elected officials going to washington have that kind of experience. let's create jobs. that's what we need to do, put people back to work. when we put people back to work, we'll get our economy back on track and plan to do that. a six-point plan that cuts taxes for the middle class, cuts taxes for business. , cuts taxes for business. , cuts taxes for business. word and some regulations. cuts back 1 penny of every dollar for a defense spending. we will have a comprehensive energy plan. we will drill for our oil and
natural gas will we continue to develop our wind and solar and geothermal and we will train and empower the workforce by training them for the jobs we have available. congressman murphy has no plan to put people back to work and to address these issues. the folks in connecticut want to know, what are we going to do to put them back to where? someone congressman murphy, you have a minute. murphy: i have a plan and i'm proud of it. it's a plan very different from hers. the reason for that is we've tried linda mcmahon's plan and it has failed. we traded under the bush administration. less taxes for millionaires, exploding deficits, listening for schools and job training program and infrastructure. there's nothing different in linda mcmahon's plan than what is tried and failed already. i want to do something different. i want to concentrate tax cuts in the middle class to take the money we'd be spending our tax cuts for the wealthy and put it into our families, put it into
our schools, help our kids who need a little bit of a boost. there's a big difference between our planet and the selection. and that's what we should be talking about. i just don't think we should go back to the same set of failed economic policies that are essentially the six-point plan that linda mcmahon talked about that has resulted in the economic catastrophe were just emerging from. someone thank you. back to you, mrs. mcmahon. mcmahon: advertising free to talk about your issues in your plan carrier next two words are linda mcmahon. you say you have a plan, you don't have a plan. i think free to go through your plan. minus six-point. i've put it down. you can look at it, you can judge it coming you can see what i stand for. you can see what i'm going to do. my plan is to cut taxes for the middle class, lower the bracket from 25% to 15%. that's the only bracket have a touch for the rest of the bracket same place.
if your plan were to go through what your policy relative to taxes and allow the upper income to increase, we lose about 700,000 jobs. that is not the kind of proposal need to get our country back on track. >> moderator: time for a new question from keisha grant, this time for mrs. mcmahon. >> you both touched on the fact of the middle class is hurting across the country. connecticut is simply no different. with one of the wealthiest states coming up with one of the highest poverty rates. do you view the income gap is a problem facing our state? if so, do you have a plan to close the poverty gap and revive the middle class in connecticut? mcmahon, well, that's exactly what my plan is designed to do. if people back to work. and by cutting taxes for the middle class, from the 25% to 15% bracket and then lowering taxes on jobs, job creators so
we give them certainty and able invest and grow, reducing business from 35% to 25% said they are globally competitive, to getting rid of the over burdensome regulation. i talked about a lot of these points previously. regulations really hurt businesses. we need regulation, but not the over burdensome portions of this regulations. my plan is designed and care to jumpstart the economy by putting our people back to work. taxes on job creators need to be reduced. small businesses need certainty they can hire. they don't know what's going to happen at the end of this year. all the tax rates going to expire? will have 2 million jobs in our country. if the full implementation of the affordable health care act goes through, the tax increases are 21 tax increases and the affordable health care act. they don't know relative to
sequestration. the defense industries in our state are looking at potentially having jobs cut about 35,000 loss of jobs and electric boats. there's a lot of issues preventing our businesses are growing and hiring of the middle class will benefit from the tax cut. but go back to work. small businesses will create more jobs than our economy will get jumpstarted and get back on track. someone congressman murphy. murphy: a good part of that answer was just a recitation of this idea that if you give tax cuts to millionaires are a few carp regulations for businesses that you're going to shrink the wage gap. and i think that's a misunderstanding of what actually empowers people in this country. you now, my mother got a chance to write yourself up out of poverty because of education,
because we gave individuals at the bottom of our economic scale tools with which to succeed. linda mcmahon wants to solve the problem for people who were at the bottom of the income scale by helping people at the top of the income scale. that is not what has made our country great. what is made our country great is investing in those people. that's why think we should end the bush tax is for the wealthy come at a cabin payor deficit and that the other half into education. that's why i don't think that linda mcmahon needs another $7 million tax cut. we should be putting the money for people weatherby job training programs or whether it be lowering class size. ultimately, investment in people, believing they can do something great is what is going to close that gap. the linda mcmahon has had a chance to do this and she hasn't done it. when the state of connecticut gave her $10 million, her company, to create jobs in the middle of the recession, she took that money, pocketed it and
at the same time, laid off 10% of our workforce, while making $46 million. that's what exacerbates the wage gap in ceos who take advantage of state tax credits and take advantage of their workers to make tens of millions of dollars, while everybody else suffers. i have a very different record. i've supported education, job training, the programs that were the middle class in the ground up, not from the top down. someone when they go to the one minute response come you both mention the middle class a lot in this campaign in the debates. as part of your response if you could define what the middle class means you come how do you define middle-class? mcmahon: as part of my plan when introducing this on the tax scale, that is the spread of 83,000 jobs to $146,000. so i am looking at that portion and referencing them as the middle-class as part part of my
plan. again, this characterizes my plan. my plan is not about a tax cut for me. my plan is about a tax cut for the middle-class. that is the only tax cut that is part of my plan. the other bracket stayed the same. and before going to jumpstart our economy, let's reinvigorate our medical class. that's a small businesses working. i've been there. i know what it takes. i know that kind of impetus and how you grow when you have certainty to invest. congressman murphy is never created any jobs. he's not been through the private market. he's a career politician we don't need to send the same people to washington that made this mess now and expect them to fix it. >> moderator: thank you. congressman murphy, one minute. murphy: been part of the middle-class is a mentality. a family struggling to be able to make their budget work every month, who would be in dire straits if they missed a couple paychecks. that's the middle-class. but mrs. mcmahon is wrong with
the ideas that just experience in the private sector automatically qualifies you to be united states editor or to know something about creating jobs. i think when you've made the choices she has made, to pocket our money and state taxpayers and then lay off workers, that that shows you don't necessarily have values it takes to be a united states senator. ultimately, linda mcmahon's planned could drastically cut funding for education. i think we should go the other way. i think we should make investments in our schools and colleges to allow more little girls like my mother to live the american dream. that's what creates real wealth into the original question, that's it starts to shrink the wage gap year >> moderator: at the next question goes to congressman murphy from her do this. >> the panelists did not agree to any questions, but the one thing we did agree to was to
cover new territory. unfortunate, tardis mycology tri-county for the same stuff here for the previous 20 minutes. so let's hear something else. most of the people i hear from are fed up with your advertising and what they don't seem to realize is the radio and television broadcasting stations have no power to veto or edit your advertisements in any way under federal law, which gives you the opportunity to legally live on radio and television. would you support repeal that law? murphy: i think would be of great benefit to people of connecticut to you the truth and it seems like almost every other week we are picking up a harper current india reading another linda mcmahon at a significantly misleading. now i'll say this. i do think we have the obligation of candidates to talk about the differences in this race. i'm proud to be running an ad on tv talking about my job, the
work that i've done to create jobs in connecticut with the building of a new commuter rail line, but the fact i've been able to bring money to rehab an old factory in water very to the teachers back the job in new britain, to build new submarines in groton. i also understand that you talk about were linda mcmahon and i are different i think advertising is an appropriate place to do that. people need to know that i support tax cuts for the middle class and linda mcmahon supports tax cuts for the wealthy. people need to supported by generous support a woman's right to choose, decides that the right to allow employers to contraception for women in the workplace. so i do think we need to tell the story. but ultimately, something else besides the amount you have to run out fast to matter in this campaign. obviously have been outspent on tv by five to one margin by
linda mcmahon. and in the end, it is not the tv commercials that are going to win out. sincerity is in the difference in the values we hold that people are going to see. so listen, i'm proud to talk about my record on tv, but also an obligation to talk about differences. >> so you don't support the hat to stop the commercials? murphy: i would certainly be looking at a way to allow stations. the mcmahon: there have been 50 take a nasa may contain false information. that is happening. if they're asked to do the comments proven to be false. there were instances of that. you know, the congressman murphy talked to about the hartford current talking about my own. they clearly said relative to his side, relative to my social security stance that it was baseless and false.
and so, we can look another congressman murphy, an outcome has to own up to his own actions. the way i believe we communicate best with our voters here in connecticut is to be out talking with them and directing the time, letting them look us in the eye, but in damascus the tough questions because believe me, i've been all over date. and our folks are connecticut are not shy about asking you what you're going to do and what are you going to do for me? that's what they say to me. a woman comes up to me and says the tears in her eyes, i lost my job. i'm now working two jobs to try to make it neat and i can't do it. a mother who looks at me and says, you know what, gas prices are so high that i'm now having to choose between which it duties they take do. these are the results of the failed policy of congressman murphy over the past six years that he served in congress.
he's voted to raise the debt sacked six times. our debt has more than doubled. he voted to increase taxes. he said to cut taxes on middle class, but he is raise taxes on the middle class, voted to raise taxes in the middle-class. so if you look at congressman murphy's record, he does one thing, says one thing he connecticut and it's another thing when it washington. i'm not so we have to change. we have to job creators who are going to deliver for the people of connecticut and people who know how to create jobs. >> you also support repeal than in other words? the log required broadcasters to carry the spot to matter what they say. mcmahon: now come i would not vote to repeal. >> moderator: to add linda mcmahon is not my ad. she is right about the fact it is important for us to get out there and talk to people and frankly, linda mcmahon has been reluctant to do this, very
reluctant to talk to reporters and news editorial boards. and you can see why. because when she dies, we start to see what she really stands for. we start to hear about these plans to send for social security or the privatization of medicare. you start to see issues that at the editorial board meeting last week that she would oppose connecticut's law mandating emergency contraception for the dems. you know, people deserve to hear about the real plan that linda mcmahon or i will have for this state. i want to do something different than we've done in the past. but to make sure we invest in the middle class rather than the rich and i'm willing to talk about that in any form. i think that should be how voters make up their mind. linda mcmahon: you clearly do not come forth with any kind of a plan. you continue to talk about your
record. your record is your plan. you don't have to talk about a plane because you have a record. murphy: have been talking about my play all day. mcmahon: it's not your turn. your plan has been to raise taxes on the middle class. your record -- the effect of your record has been increased gas prices, higher unemployment, food costs going up, wages going down and more home foreclosures here in our state. we can't afford six more years of senator murphy in washington. >> moderator: that we are back to the beginning of the reporter panel. train to come you get the question for mrs. mcmahon. >> mr. mcmahon, mr. murphy has suggested if republicans gain the majority, women better look out. you have portrayed yourself as being pro-choice. the national abortion rights
league has endorsed mr. murphy. at same time, opponents including a top leader of connecticut right to life organization say they will vote for you. so voters are probably confused about all this. how would you demonstrate and prove to doubtful voters that you truly are pro-choice? mcmahon: i said from the beginning that i am a pro-choice candidate. that has not wavered. but i am a woman. i have a daughter. i have three granddaughters. i don't want to take any action that is going to be harmful for them relative to their health choices are relative to choices i think they should make and not the federal government. congressman murphy has taught about where i am on this issue. i am pro-choice and have not wavered from that position. i think it's very important that we have health care in place for this, for, for those things.
and i provided is that my company. i'm proud of the record i have. again, i would do nothing that is going to negatively impact the health and well-being of those closest to me, especially my daughter and granddaughter. you think i would do anything differently is just ludicrous. and i respect and support connecticut's law for emergency contraception. the states have a right to have those laws and i support connecticut's law. murphy: lets us system to a people's in their whole lives on this issue had to say. if you can come pro-choice group came to connecticut to campaign for me and she said linda mcmahon is not pro-choice. peter wolfgang, head of the leading anti-choice organization here in connecticut said he's voting for linda mcmahon because her election could lead to the overturning of roe v. wade. and you can't say that you're
pro-choice, while been supporting things that the blunt amendment, which would take away from women the ability to purchase contraception. you can't say you are pro-choice , but then be open to voting for supreme court justices that would overturn the very law that provides access for women to fall preventative health care benefits. i'm proud to play a leading role as a pro-choice advocate anyone's health care advocate in the state. i went to the state legislature to fight for connecticut law mandating contraception coverage. i stood up as a member of the committee that wrote the health care bill to enact a provision that would establish offices of women's health care in each of the most important health care agencies and the federal government. for me and my wife, our commitment isn't just a political one. it's personal. my wife a set of connecticut's leading pro-choice organization and we spent much of our lives fighting for this cause.
the facts are clear. linda mcmahon is not pro-choice. she continues to support laws that undermine access to preventive health care for women. but going to the united states senate and perhaps being the 51st vote for anti-women tea party majority they are, she could do grave damage to the right connecticut women have accepted and have enjoyed for a very long time. mcmahon: when you were at the state senate, the bill that is now law was in your committee. and when you were cochair of the committee come you let it die. i talked about the emergency contraception law on the books now. you're running for congress at the time you would not ring it up for a vote although the numbers said you had ample opportunity. you see work for that, but when you run for congress come you let that bill died. i am a pro-choice candidate and i think what hurts women mourn our state is the fact that they don't have jobs.
more women are in poverty need to make sure we can get them back to work. those are the issues women around our state are talking to me about most of all. they want to make sure they can continue to provide for their family. they make most of the economic decisions in their home and they are really hurting. they want changes. they want jobs, our economy to get back on track. they want to make sure their husbands will have a job or they'll build have a job, but their kids can have jobs when they graduate from college. >> moderator: mr. murphy, one more minute for you. murphy: linda mcmahon is not telling the truth when she says that the go by. as a republican supporter of hers has never had the impression of the bill said it was one of the prime supporters and the irony of linda mcmahon attacking me and says she opposes it. she opposes making sure that every woman in the state, whether they walk into a secular religious hospital has access to emergency contraception.
i think part of the reason why there's so much support from a muslim and an estate is not just positions be taken on the issues, but linda mcmahon street and women. the way she demeaned women in the ring is abhorrent to thousands of women across state and they think that conduct together with affection to support the damage and that she went to washington. the reason why she's having a hard time winning support from women. >> moderator: okay, thank you. dennis house coming of the next question. >> you both have argued at length that you are pro-choice. when do you believe life begins? murphy: listen, i believe a woman in a doctor should have the ability to make choices over the woman's body. i just don't think government should get in the way of that decision. i know different people have different beliefs on that
subject, but ultimately, that decision about whether women goes to to the painful choice is ultimately hers and her doctors to decide. that is at risk today right now, dennis. the republican tea party majority in the house is trying to take that choice away from women. we are one vote away on the supreme court for not decision being removed from families and physicians have ultimately been put in the hands of doc ayres, in the hands of politicians. i just don't think ultimately that's the way to go when i'm going to fight with every last breath, to make sure the women of this state have the ability to make that decision on their own and i'm going to try to make sure the supreme court doesn't have enough votes on the two under overturn roe v. wade. it's different than the commitments linda mcmahon has made. so ultimately, life begins at
earth. i support our current law that restricts late-term abortions, unless there is a health or life of the mother estate. >> mrs. mcmahon. mcmahon: this is the area of which congressman murphy and i have a great deal of agreement. i am pro-choice. it does not need to be made by the united states government. ugly women,, families coming up yours, where the situation of women may find themselves in should make that choice. it clearly is not to be named by the government. and that's totally opposed to partial-birth abortions with the same caveat congressman murphy has hamas is the health and well-being of the mother. so we are in much agreement on this. i will not support my party in repealing any of these laws because i am a pro-choice candidate. i'm an independent thinker and i
will not always those strictly down party lines. congressman murphy has voted 90% of the time with his party when he has served. i'm an independent thinker and i will vote differently than my party if i believe something different than what the party is putting forward. i believe that life begins also at birth and i don't support partial-birth abortions. >> moderator: congressman murphy come you have a minute. fabry i continue to hear linda mcmahon talked about how independent from her party. we look at issues that are critical to women in state, terry to see the differentiation. she walked walked on the one in opposing justice that opposes roe v. wade. shall support mr. mcconnell to be her party's leader, who will stop at nothing to destroy women's right to choose. she supports blunt amendment and contraception coverage for millions of americans. she opposes connecticut's law
with emergency contraception. the reason why these organizations are here so strongly supporting my campaign and opposing linda mcmahon's campaign is that they don't believe she is pro-choice when she takes these positions. and they seem a record of standing up for women across this state. and they know that if you care about protecting a woman's right to choose, there's only 11 choice in the campaign. >> moderator: mrs. mcmahon. mcmahon: mr. murphy continues to mischaracterize what i've said. i've said i support connecticut five for emergency contraception. there's no deviation from that. i support the law. and as i settle up a bit earlier, these are important issues with the issues facing women in our state today is the fact that more of them have lost their jobs. more of them are in more of them are looking for a way to make sure they can sustain their
families. and they are worried. they want to make sure economy is going to get back on track. the thing that will give them the greatest comfort is to know that our economy is going to be found again, that they're going to have jobs, that their wages are going up, that they'll provide for their families. this is the primary issue facing a women today in our state and all the people in our state, as well as our country. we need those to go to washington who know how to create jobs to get our economy back on track. >> moderator: our next question will come from keisha grant for mrs. mcmahon. >> steve, thank you. i want to get back to campaign that's been lost all seen them come you can't miss them. at this particular race has become vicious. it has become personal. when you look at your are you ever embarrassed of them? mcmahon: i think we have a great cross-section of our ads on television, which put forth my
position and also contrasts with congressman murphy's position. i think there are issues where he has not been forthcoming. we should draw the attention for the people of connecticut. he had an ad that's running that talks about saving jobs, supporting johnson electric boats. in this odd ones -- get a picture of a norwegian submarine and not an american submarine. and you know, those kinds of ads need to be corrected. i think for the people in groton, it is very hurtful. and so i think we need to have honesty in our ancestor, television. the purpose of the ad is to create, i believe, or to inform the public what our positions are. i had ads that have talked about my plan, but have gone through the steps that talk about powerpoint better people that
work. and i'm going to continue to talk about a plan because that is what is on the minds of the people of connecticut. it is the primary issue in this race all across the country. so i talk about my plan. the fact that i want to lower taxes on the middle class and congressman murphy has voted to raise them. so we'll have contrasts with the a to go up on television and i'm going to continue to communicate my petition with the people of connecticut. >> so you say you're not embarrassed of any of those that would've aired? mcmahon: now, we are communicating our messages. >> moderator: i was going to remind the question is are you embarrassed by your own ads? said throughout that is going to get off easy there. listen, i'm part of the ads we run and i think the fact that linda mcmahon's campaign is reduced to arguing over b. roll
footage in our campaign ads shows you how little she really wants to talk about the issues. you know, linda mcmahon's ads have been vicious and personal, directed at me and my wife and family. and i think this way should be about the issues. when i ran out, i'm talking the differences between linda mcmahon and i am her professional background and on our ideas for the state going forward. i'm not running ads attacking her and her family personally in the way her ads have attacked and my family. her campaign was asked at one point, a month or so straight vicious hard-hitting negative outcome about it and talk about issues more, linda mcmahon? her campaign said that would use senseless exercise. well, it would be senseless exercise for linda mcmahon's campaign. we ultimately need to be talking about differences between the two of us on the issues.
i think i might have been one minute. [inaudible] >> moderator: all right, we do hear you are correct. you get a few more seconds. murphy: i don't want to mimic mitt romney and complain about the debate rolls. my point is just this, that mrs. mcmahon's campaign doesn't want to talk about the issue differences because as we've heard on women's health care, issues of tax policy or supporting education, we do have major differences between our two campaigns. and ultimately i hope the last two weeks of this campaign are on those differences because if were talking about our visions for this state and our plan, then i think people will see that linda mcmahon stands at the right wing ideology in washington it's not ready for this state while i've been rooting for what's best. >> moderator: to replace replaced the batteries in. our caucus back on time.
mrs. mcmahon, you have one minute. mcmahon: i keep asking mr. murphy to talk about the issues and key. linda mcmahon. you don't hear them talking about these. you don't hear them talking about what his plan is going to be too that the people in our state back to her. you don't hear him talking about how he is going to grow the economy. he says he doesn't need to talk about his plan because he can stand on his record. i pointed out earlier in this debate his record. we do not have a solid economy. with higher taxes taxes, higher prices, debt has doubled since he's been in office to mccain on the fourth six more years of these failed policies. >> moderator: congressmen. murphy: that's not true. we have lower taxes. only last for years have lowered middle-class taxes in this state. i do talk about my plan. no matter how many times you
repeat a kind of repetition does not equal veracity. the fact is my plan is rooted in a middle-class tax cut. my plan is rooted in new energy security for this nation so we can lead the world in renewable energy jobs. my plan is rooted in rebuilding this nation, putting construction workers on the job. nothing is rooted in taking half of the bush tax cuts and putting them into education so we can educate the next generation of job creators across this country. my plan is rooted in the scene of the people of this state. no matter how many times linda mcmahon wants to say i don't have one does not make it true. let's talk about the differences between our plans. let's talk about issues that matter to the people of connecticut rather than engage in this unnecessary. >> moderator: mark davis, question for me to congressman murphy. >> given the nasty nature of the advertising in the debates in
the campaign press releases, this is a very appropriate question. it's not mine. came from a colleague of mine at abc news. let's see how you do. would you please say something nice about your opponent. last night's murphy: i'm not what beautiful two-minute on this. now, i absolutely will. linda mcmahon is clearly a very driven person. she's someone which she sets her mind to something, has shown that she can accomplish that. i'd also note that she has over the last several years made substantial investments in some connecticut charities. i know that it's done some good things for people and they certainly give her credit on both of those accounts. you know, you're right that these campaigns do tend to get very personal and i think people are sick and tired of it and people want these campaigns to be about the issue differences. i think they're sick and tired of campaigns been so personal
because they then seek it extended over to governing, that they then watch washington do nothing but fight, while they and their lives are pining away to get along. when times get tough for families to find a way to get a line. coworkers find away to agree. and they don't see that in washington today. that's why spend so much time on this issue of bipartisan cooperation. in all, this group, i don't claim that it's changing the partisan culture by health in washington, but i decided to stop complaining about the personal politics and i decided to try to do something about it, so he took over a group of republicans and democrats to get together to talk about stability. we were the group behind the two parties sitting next to each other at the state of the union speech. i get it. it's not revolutionary. it's time we elected people to washington who will start working on bringing the two parties together down there. i'm proud of the work i've done
in the house of representatives. i want to do more than in the senate and i'm happy to admit for all of our disagreements there certainly makes things i can say. >> mrs. mcmahon. center one of the nicest thing i've seen about mr. murphy or his two little boys. being a grandmother with six little grandchildren, you look at them and imagine the kind of pride he has in washington every day and wanting to have the best, you know, for them. and so that is something i've noticed with congress and murphy and his little boys and i congratulate him and his wife on having such a nice family. i'm sure that he would also like to make sure that the future for those little boys is going to be bright and that they're going to have the opportunity, even better opportunity than he's had her his parents before him in the next generation to come to follow this whole gamut. and so that is why i am focusing
so much in this race on what is wrong with our economy today and i will keep going back to it because it is what is pulling down are middle-class. that's why one a tax cut for the middle class. i want to make sure that his little boys, my grandchildren come at the same kind of opportunities in america to succeed. that's what got me into this race to start with it. i look at the faces my little grandchildren and i wondered if they were going to have the same opportunity that their grandfather and i had when our debt was going out of control, when our deficit is increasing, when we're spending more than we were making, when jobs are falling by the wayside. i looked at them and thought, i don't want that to be my legacy for them. i want a legacy for them to be that they have america's promise for opportunity, that they can try to be what they want to be. that they can take risks and if they fail, they have an opportunity to get back. their grandfather and i felt at one point.
we lost everything we had. we have to declare bankruptcy. we lost our power. we had to start over. but we are able to because of the opportunities this country offered us. that is my mission and goal, to make sure they have the same opportunity. >> moderator: congressman murphy coming of another minute to say nice things. center for the record, i think linda mcmahon said nice things about that little boys. now, i appreciate -- i appreciate that, mrs. mcmahon. we're really proud of them and i don't take a lot of credit for how wonderful they are. i give most of it to my wife. and listen, i think my reason for running is rooted in those same stories. i do often talk about my mother in this race. her scent in the middle class from poverty. i think to say in dispatch delays possible, this difference about how linda mcmahon and i approach the solution to economic mobility.
i just don't believe that you invest in this case you want to become great by giving tax cuts to the wealthy. i think you support education and job training and things that public housing in the programs that can make their families whole. i think some of our rationales for running or similar. i just would come out in different places. trim and mrs. mcmahon, you have another will moment stay warm and fuzzy things about commerce and murphy if you choose. mcmahon: don't push it too far. cumbersome work and i do have it different philosophy. his is one of bigger government and more government control. minus one of private sector investment. he continues to talk about my plan is a tax cut for the rich. it is not. it is a tax cut for the middle class. it is keeping the other bracket the same. we will have money to invest in our education and all the other things in our country if we get our deadline and get our economy back on track.
it doesn't happen by magic. it doesn't have been by regulations passed in washington. it happens by encouraging our middle-class and lenin are job creators and small businesses flourish. our economy will then grow. we cannot invest in all the things he's talking about. but as long as we stay so mired in debt, we are not going to come out of this recession that we've been in. we're just going to continue to plod along. we need change. >> moderator: okay, thank you you were getting close to the end of the hour, server and switch things up a little bit. i'll tell you both up front i'm going to ask you a question. fill each get one minute to answer the questions and then a one minute rebuttal. i'm a tourist reform policy question is supposed to, mrs. mcmahon. governor molloy went to china to drum up business for the state of connecticut, but there's other people who complain about china's influence the world, but
geopolitical and economic. i wonder, do you view china as an ally or a rival to the united states? mcmahon: i can say relative to governor molloy, not relative to governor molloy, but to china and businesses in our state that china is our fifth exporting connecticut. so there is a lot of business that happens between connecticut and china. i do think that the chinese need to respect our intellectual property laws, which they do not. they take our products, they manufacture an inferior version is out for cheaper prices. i think the world trade organization is to be more involved so we are not allowing china to manipulate its current v. it is an increasing economic and global power, one that you must watch but when we cannot be afraid of. >> moderator: congressman, allen or rifle? murphy: well, they are both at the fact is that china get away with murder when it comes to
trade policy. it often means the product at a connecticut company produces is more expensive than they begin to manufacture because of other currencies manipulated, which it called them the modern frink to sanctions to make them stop. bye-bye america work i've done is critical as well. the federal government with our taxpayer dollars are outsourcing our own work and the department of defense to chinese companies. we should stop that and keep our work here at home. i'm a fan, i think our histories are relevant. i have fought outsourcing. linda mcmahon has outsourcer over to countries like china. on the issue to whether or not we stand up, there's a differences. >> moderator: mrs. mcmahon coming of a minute to answer
that. mcmahon: if there was such a good idea, he didn't go forward. he voted against it. more than twice when he was in congress. i have been all our state. i've talked to companies who are threatened with a nonprofit china does, but also they are finding that they are now repairing those products and often companies resourcing products come directly back to u.s. companies because china's product is inferior. we do need to have a tough stance and make sure they are not manipulating currency. we need to make sure they respect their intellectual property and we should view them as a trading partner, but we do need to have fair trade. >> moderator: congressman coming of a minute also. mcmahon: sure, linda mcmahon liked this but i voted against bye-bye america measure. the fact issue taxing on this issue because she does want to tell you that she doesn't
believe in the buy american. she doesn't believe we should dance connecticut companies and american companies that taxpayer contracts. there are companies right here in connecticut, companies like colonial bronze who are losing jobs as we speak because we don't have people in congress standing up for by america laws. linda mcmahon said it's a slogan, not a strategy. that's not true. there's 600,000 jobs in the country that could be created if we had stronger by america laws, for those desperate for a paycheck, but on a slogan. that is a solution. >> moderator: okay, very good. we do separate white house this afternoon on the issue of closing statements in order and it resulted that the coin toss was the first closing statement is going to come from linda mcmahon. mcmahon: thank you again for joining us today. you the voters of connecticut will have a clear choice in november, a clear choice between someone who is creating jobs and
his plan to do that for you and someone who has never created a job and has no plan for those people who are out of work in our state, which is the most important issue in this election. you'll have a choice between someone who can't be bought and between someone who's 30 taken special interest money for a loan. my opponent's chief ambition is to hold public office. mine is to make sure that our kids and grandkids have a better opportunity than we did. so i am asking you to make history in november, not send another career politician to washington, december 1st woman from connecticut to serve in the united states senate, a woman who can't be bought, a woman who worked only for you. i'm linda mcmahon and ask you for your vote on november 6.
murphy: my parents taught me a simple lesson in life. they said if there's a fight than understeer family, community that you can sit on the sideline. a site dedicated my entire life to fighting for the middle-class college was passed in stem cell research, famed for middle-class tax cuts, or standing up for manufacturing jobs. i've been in the middle of some of the biggest fights that have mattered. what makes the contrast between me and linda mcmahon so clear is that linda mcmahon hasn't just sat on the sidelines, she's made things worse by mistreating her workers, by outsourcing work and by selling sex and violence directed. linda mcmahon has never been there for us, but i have. i hope it lived up to the challenge and a mother laid out